The BN66 thread has broken a record!

[RichardCranium]

The "BN66 - the road to Judicial Review" thread is popular. At times during lunchtime today half the connections on here were pointing at that thread.

Regarding the record, it was:

Most users ever online was 673, 22nd April 2009 at 13:34.

It was broken:

13:30 - Currently Active Users: 663 (141 members and 522 guests)
13:36 - Currently Active Users: 665 (139 members and 526 guests)
13:37 - Currently Active Users: 668 (139 members and 529 guests)
13:38 - Currently Active Users: 679 (142 members and 537 guests)
Most users ever online was 679, Today at 13:39.

Edit:

Most users ever online was 685, Today at 13:40.
Most users ever online was 688, Today at 13:46.
Most users ever online was 714, Today at 15:50.

[scooterscot]

What the heck is BN66 anyway?

[Sysman]

A look at page 1 of that thread shows why:

The date of the Judicial Review has been confirmed as 19th Jan 2010 and will last 2-3 days.

[EternalOptimist]

could someone give us a potted history/running commentary ?

[NickFitz]

What the heck is BN66 anyway?

An attempt by HMRC to introduce retrospective legislation that will allow them to hit many thousands of people with massive tax bills backdated to 2001.

Parliament has passed it, and now it's gone for judicial review in an attempt to have it thrown out.

If they get this through, then the next thing they try could be to say that everybody has been IR35-caught since the beginning of time and send you a tax bill for all your expenses and dividends for all the years you've been contracting.

Be afraid, be very afraid...

[Bunk]

If they get this through, then the next thing they try could be to say that everybody has been IR35-caught since the beginning of time and send you a tax bill for all your expenses and dividends for all the years you've been contracting.

Be afraid, be very afraid...

If that happens, byeeeeeee

[chef]

ummm something tells me that's not a good thing, i don fink

[minestrone]

An attempt by HMRC to introduce retrospective legislation that will allow them to hit many thousands of people with massive tax bills backdated to 2001.

Parliament has passed it, and now it's gone for judicial review in an attempt to have it thrown out.

If they get this through, then the next thing they try could be to say that everybody has been IR35-caught since the beginning of time and send you a tax bill for all your expenses and dividends for all the years you've been contracting.

Be afraid, be very afraid...

That is not the case, they claim that BN66 was a clarification of an existing rule, IR35 is something new.

[scooterscot]

An attempt by HMRC to introduce retrospective legislation that will allow them to hit many thousands of people with massive tax bills backdated to 2001.

Parliament has passed it, and now it's gone for judicial review in an attempt to have it thrown out.

If they get this through, then the next thing they try could be to say that everybody has been IR35-caught since the beginning of time and send you a tax bill for all your expenses and dividends for all the years you've been contracting.

Be afraid, be very afraid...

If that ever happened you'd have riots on the street.

[NickFitz]

That is not the case, they claim that BN66 was a clarification of an existing rule, IR35 is something new.

The judge has already accepted that the existing rule doesn't apply, and they have changed tack. They are now arguing that, whatever the rules might have been, it's what Parliament actually meant that counts. The fact that the new legislation therefore doesn't apply should, they argue, be ignored, as what they wanted was for it to apply, and that's what Parliament wanted to give them.

In other words, their argument is that the rules are whatever they choose them to be, and if they aren't, they were meant to be; and that they should be able to impose such changes in the rules retrospectively.